US Drone Strikes In Pakistan
- Thread starter Kumar
- Start date
fatman17
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 32,563
- Reaction score
- 98
- Country
- Location
Pakistan airstrikes killed top Qaeda men: Petraeus
* US commander says support of tribes and local communities essential in Pakistan
BAGRAM AIR BASE: US missile strikes in Pakistan’s Tribal Areas in recent months have killed three of the top 20 Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders in the area, US Central Command chief Gen David Petraeus told The Associated Press in an interview on Thursday.
He did not identify the leaders he said had died in the US strikes.
Petraeus described the insurgents on both sides as a ‘mutual enemy’, who in the case of Pakistan represent ‘an existential threat, and they recognise it as such’.
Tribal support: He said Afghanistan’s government was looking at new initiatives to engage Afghan tribes in the fight against insurgents. “[Afghanistan] is a country in which support of the tribes, of the local communities, for the overall effort is essential,” he said.
“Certainly there is a long tradition of working with the tribes in (Pakistan’s) Tribal Areas and so it is very natural that they should engage those tribes and endeavour to get their assistance in confronting the extremists who have turned what used to be fairly peaceful areas into strongholds for individuals who . . . believe that they have the right to blow up other people who do not see the world the way they do,” Petraeus said. ap
http://www.thedailytimes.com.pk
* US commander says support of tribes and local communities essential in Pakistan
BAGRAM AIR BASE: US missile strikes in Pakistan’s Tribal Areas in recent months have killed three of the top 20 Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders in the area, US Central Command chief Gen David Petraeus told The Associated Press in an interview on Thursday.
He did not identify the leaders he said had died in the US strikes.
Petraeus described the insurgents on both sides as a ‘mutual enemy’, who in the case of Pakistan represent ‘an existential threat, and they recognise it as such’.
Tribal support: He said Afghanistan’s government was looking at new initiatives to engage Afghan tribes in the fight against insurgents. “[Afghanistan] is a country in which support of the tribes, of the local communities, for the overall effort is essential,” he said.
“Certainly there is a long tradition of working with the tribes in (Pakistan’s) Tribal Areas and so it is very natural that they should engage those tribes and endeavour to get their assistance in confronting the extremists who have turned what used to be fairly peaceful areas into strongholds for individuals who . . . believe that they have the right to blow up other people who do not see the world the way they do,” Petraeus said. ap
http://www.thedailytimes.com.pk
muse
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 13,006
- Reaction score
- 0
Ejaz is just too good!
Lets give Mr Mukhtar an easier ministry
Ejaz Haider
Forgive my lack of politeness but sometimes it serves to get right to the point. The government should immediately relieve Chaudhry Ahmed Mukhtar of his current portfolio.
Mr Mukhtar is a senior PPP leader and has done much for the party. Given that and given our system of patronage, he should be rewarded. So thats not the point of contention. He should be a minister; only, the ministry of defence can do without him and be none the worse for it. Heres why.
It is a matter of consternation that despite the rhetoric about civil-military imbalance and the presumed need for civilians to develop the capacity to effectively monitor the military, the defence ministry has never really been given the importance it should have been accorded. Surprising, because one would have thought that civilian governments would attempt, through various measures, to reclaim the powers of the ministry.
That has not happened. If anything, either the MoD has not had a full-time minister or it has been treated as a peripheral ministry. Mr Mukhtar as defence minister is about as useful as Huckleberry Finn would be at the head of a fighting corps.
Mr Mukhtar is a decent man, no doubt about that. But he is inarticulate, knows nothing about his current job, says things that are either patently wrong or undiplomatic or both, and, just notice his expression the next time he talks to the press, looks visibly and completely distraught by his current calling.
The bloody Americans wont stop drone attacks and he is in the unenviable position of having to explain the strikes to a media bristling with sovereignty. What does he say: Hum iss qabil nahin keh Amreeki fauj say larr sakain. Excuse me? Thats not what the parliament said. The parliament, of which Mr Mukhtar is a part, said it would defend the sovereignty of this country come what may.
Heres the problem. Because Mr Mukhtar doesnt know the nuances, he can say one of two things. We will defend our sovereignty, in which case people will ask why the drone attacks continue. Or he can say We cant fight the Americans, in which case while people will understand why drone attacks will continue, the reality is not going to do much for the reputation of either the army or the civilian government.
Of course he could have, if only he had known how to, explained the drone attacks as strikes that may not be entirely unilateral. He could have talked about how targets and target areas are identified, surveilled, reconnoitred and then engaged. He could have explained the cooperative framework in which troops on both sides are trying to counter the threat and the political compulsions that continue to create tensions. He could have spoken of the difference between a unilateral ground incursion and a drone attack.
And if he wants to use the capability framework, then he could have perhaps detailed the difference between a ground incursion, which can be fought off, and aerial attacks that are more difficult to counter because that is where the technology differential comes in.
Capability is not something one either has or doesnt. It is multilayered. Insurgencies prove that a weaker adversary can take on a stronger one by pulling the latter into a contested zone. There are multiple ways in which the advantage of a stronger adversary can be blunted on the ground. But fighting such a war has its own costs because it will generally be fought on the defenders terrain. The attacker will always have the option of cutting his losses and getting out. His mainland, assets and infrastructure remain secure.
The question is: Are we ready to fight such a war? Even more importantly, do we consider the United States an adversary?
What Mr Mukhtar has said implies that. Except that he has basically thrown in the towel by saying that we cant fight the Americans. His statement is not only wrong but shows a degree of pusillanimity which the nation would automatically contrast with the supposed courage of those who are not only fighting the Americans but who the Americans now want to dialogue with.
Essentially this means the following: we cant fight the Americans so we have to accept what comes our way; worse, we are fighting those who are fighting the Americans because we have been coerced into doing so. There goes the shibboleth about this being our war.
So, Mr Mukhtar not only knows next to nothing about military affairs, he also needs to get a lesson or two in logic and understand the implications of what he says.
Lets be clear: we can fight the Americans. But it will be very costly. Any armed struggle must weigh the costs with any perceived benefits. On the other hand, should we fight the Americans? Are the Chinese fighting the Americans, or the Indians rolling up their sleeves?
No. They understand that it is much more sensible to raise ones stock within the current global architecture than opting out and bearing the costs of that decision. As Sun Tzu said: Preserving the enemys army is best, destroying it second-best. Let it be said that this statement needs to be read figuratively rather than literally.
Pakistan and the US are in a cooperative mode in Afghanistan. This is not a tension-free relationship. But neither is it one that calls for overt hostilities. The paradigm used by Islamabad so far has been flawed. Ditto for Washington.
Most drone attacks, if not all, are strikes called by us. Is it wrong if we dont have the capability and ask an ally to help us with such a platform? No. But if there are political costs then Islamabad should have fought hard to acquire UCAV (unmanned combat aerial vehicle) capability because that would have put to rest the issue of these strikes.
Politically too, it is more untenable over the longer run to abdicate all responsibility for such strikes. Even if we werent calling for them, if the strikes do end up taking out targets, the cost of owning them would have been much less than creating an impression that the Americans are doing this unilaterally and there is damn-all we can do about them.
Time to rethink what we say. Meanwhile, how about giving some other ministry to Mr Mukhtar to reward him for his services to the PPP.
Ejaz Haider is Consulting Editor of The Friday Times and Op-Ed Editor of Daily Times. He can be reached at sapper@dailytimes.com.pk
Lets give Mr Mukhtar an easier ministry
Ejaz Haider
Forgive my lack of politeness but sometimes it serves to get right to the point. The government should immediately relieve Chaudhry Ahmed Mukhtar of his current portfolio.
Mr Mukhtar is a senior PPP leader and has done much for the party. Given that and given our system of patronage, he should be rewarded. So thats not the point of contention. He should be a minister; only, the ministry of defence can do without him and be none the worse for it. Heres why.
It is a matter of consternation that despite the rhetoric about civil-military imbalance and the presumed need for civilians to develop the capacity to effectively monitor the military, the defence ministry has never really been given the importance it should have been accorded. Surprising, because one would have thought that civilian governments would attempt, through various measures, to reclaim the powers of the ministry.
That has not happened. If anything, either the MoD has not had a full-time minister or it has been treated as a peripheral ministry. Mr Mukhtar as defence minister is about as useful as Huckleberry Finn would be at the head of a fighting corps.
Mr Mukhtar is a decent man, no doubt about that. But he is inarticulate, knows nothing about his current job, says things that are either patently wrong or undiplomatic or both, and, just notice his expression the next time he talks to the press, looks visibly and completely distraught by his current calling.
The bloody Americans wont stop drone attacks and he is in the unenviable position of having to explain the strikes to a media bristling with sovereignty. What does he say: Hum iss qabil nahin keh Amreeki fauj say larr sakain. Excuse me? Thats not what the parliament said. The parliament, of which Mr Mukhtar is a part, said it would defend the sovereignty of this country come what may.
Heres the problem. Because Mr Mukhtar doesnt know the nuances, he can say one of two things. We will defend our sovereignty, in which case people will ask why the drone attacks continue. Or he can say We cant fight the Americans, in which case while people will understand why drone attacks will continue, the reality is not going to do much for the reputation of either the army or the civilian government.
Of course he could have, if only he had known how to, explained the drone attacks as strikes that may not be entirely unilateral. He could have talked about how targets and target areas are identified, surveilled, reconnoitred and then engaged. He could have explained the cooperative framework in which troops on both sides are trying to counter the threat and the political compulsions that continue to create tensions. He could have spoken of the difference between a unilateral ground incursion and a drone attack.
And if he wants to use the capability framework, then he could have perhaps detailed the difference between a ground incursion, which can be fought off, and aerial attacks that are more difficult to counter because that is where the technology differential comes in.
Capability is not something one either has or doesnt. It is multilayered. Insurgencies prove that a weaker adversary can take on a stronger one by pulling the latter into a contested zone. There are multiple ways in which the advantage of a stronger adversary can be blunted on the ground. But fighting such a war has its own costs because it will generally be fought on the defenders terrain. The attacker will always have the option of cutting his losses and getting out. His mainland, assets and infrastructure remain secure.
The question is: Are we ready to fight such a war? Even more importantly, do we consider the United States an adversary?
What Mr Mukhtar has said implies that. Except that he has basically thrown in the towel by saying that we cant fight the Americans. His statement is not only wrong but shows a degree of pusillanimity which the nation would automatically contrast with the supposed courage of those who are not only fighting the Americans but who the Americans now want to dialogue with.
Essentially this means the following: we cant fight the Americans so we have to accept what comes our way; worse, we are fighting those who are fighting the Americans because we have been coerced into doing so. There goes the shibboleth about this being our war.
So, Mr Mukhtar not only knows next to nothing about military affairs, he also needs to get a lesson or two in logic and understand the implications of what he says.
Lets be clear: we can fight the Americans. But it will be very costly. Any armed struggle must weigh the costs with any perceived benefits. On the other hand, should we fight the Americans? Are the Chinese fighting the Americans, or the Indians rolling up their sleeves?
No. They understand that it is much more sensible to raise ones stock within the current global architecture than opting out and bearing the costs of that decision. As Sun Tzu said: Preserving the enemys army is best, destroying it second-best. Let it be said that this statement needs to be read figuratively rather than literally.
Pakistan and the US are in a cooperative mode in Afghanistan. This is not a tension-free relationship. But neither is it one that calls for overt hostilities. The paradigm used by Islamabad so far has been flawed. Ditto for Washington.
Most drone attacks, if not all, are strikes called by us. Is it wrong if we dont have the capability and ask an ally to help us with such a platform? No. But if there are political costs then Islamabad should have fought hard to acquire UCAV (unmanned combat aerial vehicle) capability because that would have put to rest the issue of these strikes.
Politically too, it is more untenable over the longer run to abdicate all responsibility for such strikes. Even if we werent calling for them, if the strikes do end up taking out targets, the cost of owning them would have been much less than creating an impression that the Americans are doing this unilaterally and there is damn-all we can do about them.
Time to rethink what we say. Meanwhile, how about giving some other ministry to Mr Mukhtar to reward him for his services to the PPP.
Ejaz Haider is Consulting Editor of The Friday Times and Op-Ed Editor of Daily Times. He can be reached at sapper@dailytimes.com.pk
S-2
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2007
- Messages
- 4,210
- Reaction score
- 0
Mr. Haider goes for the heart of the discussion by outlining the manner in which the issues are addressed rather SHOULD BE addressed-
"Here’s the problem. Because Mr Mukhtar doesn’t know the nuances, he can say one of two things. “We will defend our sovereignty”, in which case people will ask why the drone attacks continue. Or he can say “We can’t fight the Americans”, in which case while people will “understand” why drone attacks will continue, the “reality” is not going to do much for the reputation of either the army or the civilian government."
These are, of course, the simple explanations- and frustrations seen expressed so often right here at def.pk. Where has been the government to explain and EDUCATE the public to the nature of the Pakistani-American military cooperation, why, and how it benefits the nation as Mr. Haider suggests here-
"Of course he could have, if only he had known how to, explained the drone attacks as strikes that may not be entirely unilateral. He could have talked about how targets and target areas are identified, surveilled, reconnoitred and then engaged. He could have explained the cooperative framework in which troops on both sides are trying to counter the threat and the political compulsions that continue to create tensions. He could have spoken of the difference between a unilateral ground incursion and a drone attack."
What are those "difference"? Look at Bajaur. How easy for the entire district has it been? Combat operations in a mixed rural-village setting against entrenched, prepared, and motivated forces will almost always be violent, destructive, and costly to infrastructure and human life. Unknown civilian deaths and casualties, 200,000 temporary refugees and extensive damage to homes and facilities with winter just around the corner.
The targets are the same as attacked in S. Waziristan. Bad guys- often foreigners, sometimes not. Human suffering resulting from collateral damage. What's the difference besides the munition flying from an aircraft with an American star?
The effect. Collateral damage sometimes arises within a 100 ft. radius every two or three days somewhere in FATA. This ensues for a milli-second and is over. The firefight doesn't drag on. The shelling isn't remorseless. The soldiers don't stoically press the assault in the face of withering defensive fire.
The enemy, though, has been attacked. It seems, based on recent official indications, with good results. Mr. Haider speaks to this perceptive dis-connect here-
"And if he wants to use the capability framework, then he could have perhaps detailed the difference between a ground incursion, which can be fought off, and aerial attacks that are more difficult to counter because that is where the technology differential comes in...".
Why doesn't Pakistan have this UCAV technology? There's nothing particularly special that prevents indigenous development. Is it because to possess this would require it's use? Pakistanis attacking Pakistanis? This, of course, is unacceptable.
Uncomfortable for everybody. Less so, though, than forthrightly explaining who's Mullah Nazir, why he must be attacked, and your government's determination to do so by whatever means available at any time or place. Citizens should know that wherever these men appear, there is a chance that they shall be attacked.
Drive these miscreants away. Do NOT invite them to your homes lest you become unwitting and hapless victims to their presence and all it brings. Provide no support and ASK THEM why they bring war to your doorsteps with their actions. Tell Maulvi Nazir that his "jihad" in Afghanistan bears no succor to your FATAland villages much less the innocents across the border.
This discussion has been conspicuous by it's absence. Mr Haider does indeed nail it.
"Here’s the problem. Because Mr Mukhtar doesn’t know the nuances, he can say one of two things. “We will defend our sovereignty”, in which case people will ask why the drone attacks continue. Or he can say “We can’t fight the Americans”, in which case while people will “understand” why drone attacks will continue, the “reality” is not going to do much for the reputation of either the army or the civilian government."
These are, of course, the simple explanations- and frustrations seen expressed so often right here at def.pk. Where has been the government to explain and EDUCATE the public to the nature of the Pakistani-American military cooperation, why, and how it benefits the nation as Mr. Haider suggests here-
"Of course he could have, if only he had known how to, explained the drone attacks as strikes that may not be entirely unilateral. He could have talked about how targets and target areas are identified, surveilled, reconnoitred and then engaged. He could have explained the cooperative framework in which troops on both sides are trying to counter the threat and the political compulsions that continue to create tensions. He could have spoken of the difference between a unilateral ground incursion and a drone attack."
What are those "difference
The targets are the same as attacked in S. Waziristan. Bad guys- often foreigners, sometimes not. Human suffering resulting from collateral damage. What's the difference besides the munition flying from an aircraft with an American star?
The effect. Collateral damage sometimes arises within a 100 ft. radius every two or three days somewhere in FATA. This ensues for a milli-second and is over. The firefight doesn't drag on. The shelling isn't remorseless. The soldiers don't stoically press the assault in the face of withering defensive fire.
The enemy, though, has been attacked. It seems, based on recent official indications, with good results. Mr. Haider speaks to this perceptive dis-connect here-
"And if he wants to use the capability framework, then he could have perhaps detailed the difference between a ground incursion, which can be fought off, and aerial attacks that are more difficult to counter because that is where the technology differential comes in...".
Why doesn't Pakistan have this UCAV technology? There's nothing particularly special that prevents indigenous development. Is it because to possess this would require it's use? Pakistanis attacking Pakistanis? This, of course, is unacceptable.
Uncomfortable for everybody. Less so, though, than forthrightly explaining who's Mullah Nazir, why he must be attacked, and your government's determination to do so by whatever means available at any time or place. Citizens should know that wherever these men appear, there is a chance that they shall be attacked.
Drive these miscreants away. Do NOT invite them to your homes lest you become unwitting and hapless victims to their presence and all it brings. Provide no support and ASK THEM why they bring war to your doorsteps with their actions. Tell Maulvi Nazir that his "jihad" in Afghanistan bears no succor to your FATAland villages much less the innocents across the border.
This discussion has been conspicuous by it's absence. Mr Haider does indeed nail it.
muse
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 13,006
- Reaction score
- 0
It's delicious and frustrating - "is and OUGHT" -- "OUGHT" is a notion that simply does not exist in Pakistani policians understanding - I remind you again:
Not only does Pakistan lack the basic capabilities that modern nation states must posses. It lacks them because it doesn't know why it should possess them. Pakistan's bureaucracy and parliament are crawling with LSE, Cambridge and Harvard graduates. This is not country that lacks generic capacity. It is a country that lacks a specific and overarching will. What use are the world's best classrooms, and most revered texts in the absence of a moral compulsion to use them? And how could they ever be used effectively in the absence of an institutional framework to regulate their use?
The present government is a much revered "Coalition", Maulana Fazl of Jamaat e Ulema e islam, the spokesman of the taliban in the Pakistani majlis, is a governt ally, the Prime Minister has awarded him the rank of a Federal Minister without portfolio.
US observers are frustrated, but if you internalize the above quote from Mr. Mosharraf Zaidi, it will be slightly easier to accept Pakistani behaviour.
By the way, you will have noticed that the suicide bombings in large population centers have ceased - this will be followed by propaganda and we will soon hear the usual, "Muslims cannot do such things and non-Muslims are doing this" -- this will be followed by the demand for concessions, followe by "international" pressure to behave responsibily, followed by suicide attacks in large population centers -- because "ought" is absent, Pakistan are always one step forward and two steps back.
"Not only does Pakistan lack the basic capabilities that modern nation states must posses. It lacks them because it doesn't know why it should possess them..]What use are the world's best classrooms, and most revered texts in the absence of a moral compulsion to use them?
Not only does Pakistan lack the basic capabilities that modern nation states must posses. It lacks them because it doesn't know why it should possess them. Pakistan's bureaucracy and parliament are crawling with LSE, Cambridge and Harvard graduates. This is not country that lacks generic capacity. It is a country that lacks a specific and overarching will. What use are the world's best classrooms, and most revered texts in the absence of a moral compulsion to use them? And how could they ever be used effectively in the absence of an institutional framework to regulate their use?
The present government is a much revered "Coalition", Maulana Fazl of Jamaat e Ulema e islam, the spokesman of the taliban in the Pakistani majlis, is a governt ally, the Prime Minister has awarded him the rank of a Federal Minister without portfolio.
US observers are frustrated, but if you internalize the above quote from Mr. Mosharraf Zaidi, it will be slightly easier to accept Pakistani behaviour.
By the way, you will have noticed that the suicide bombings in large population centers have ceased - this will be followed by propaganda and we will soon hear the usual, "Muslims cannot do such things and non-Muslims are doing this" -- this will be followed by the demand for concessions, followe by "international" pressure to behave responsibily, followed by suicide attacks in large population centers -- because "ought" is absent, Pakistan are always one step forward and two steps back.
"Not only does Pakistan lack the basic capabilities that modern nation states must posses. It lacks them because it doesn't know why it should possess them..]What use are the world's best classrooms, and most revered texts in the absence of a moral compulsion to use them?
Imran Khan
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2007
- Messages
- 68,815
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
US drone attacks hampering terror war
Zardari confident of victory against militants | Expects Obama to look into Pak objections
Agencies
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan is succeeding in its fight against extremists close to the border with Afghanistan, even though the campaign is being hampered by US missile strikes in the region, President Asif Ali Zardari said Monday.
In an interview with a US news agency, he expects US President-elect Barack Obama to take a "new look" at Pakistan's objections to the missile attacks on suspected al-Qaeda and Taliban targets, but that did not know if Obama would halt them.
The United States is pressing Pakistan to take more action against militants in its rugged and lawless northwest border area, which many consider the global front line in the fight against al-Qaeda.
Pakistan has pursued a military campaign in a tribal region in the northwest since August that officials say has killed 1,500 suspected insurgents. US officials say it has helped stem the flow of fighters into neighbouring Afghanistan, where they are blamed for rising attacks on American troops.
"I think from where it was when we took over, we are in a much better place," said Zardari about the military operation in Bajaur tribal region. "We used the force of the government and they (the militants) realized that there is a force here, that the people of Pakistan are to be reckoned to it," said Zardari.
Since August, the United States is believed to have launched at least 18 missile strikes on militant targets from unmanned drones believed launched from neighboring Afghanistan. The attacks have killed some militants, but many of the dead have been civilians, Pakistani officials say. US military General David Petraeus said last week that the missile strikes had killed three top extremists' leaders.
"We feel that the strikes are an intrusion on our sovereignty which are not appreciated by the people at large, and the first aspect of this war is to win the hearts and mind of the people," Zardari said. Pakistan also faces dire economic problems, from soaring inflation to a falling currency.
The government is talking to the International Monetary Fund about a bailout, a politically unpopular move because it often means cuts in government programs that help the Zardari insisted Monday that there was no economic meltdown looming in Pakistan, but also defended turning to the IMF.
"I think it's a difficult pill, but one has to take medicine to get better," Zardari said.
Zardari confident of victory against militants | Expects Obama to look into Pak objections
Agencies
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan is succeeding in its fight against extremists close to the border with Afghanistan, even though the campaign is being hampered by US missile strikes in the region, President Asif Ali Zardari said Monday.
In an interview with a US news agency, he expects US President-elect Barack Obama to take a "new look" at Pakistan's objections to the missile attacks on suspected al-Qaeda and Taliban targets, but that did not know if Obama would halt them.
The United States is pressing Pakistan to take more action against militants in its rugged and lawless northwest border area, which many consider the global front line in the fight against al-Qaeda.
Pakistan has pursued a military campaign in a tribal region in the northwest since August that officials say has killed 1,500 suspected insurgents. US officials say it has helped stem the flow of fighters into neighbouring Afghanistan, where they are blamed for rising attacks on American troops.
"I think from where it was when we took over, we are in a much better place," said Zardari about the military operation in Bajaur tribal region. "We used the force of the government and they (the militants) realized that there is a force here, that the people of Pakistan are to be reckoned to it," said Zardari.
Since August, the United States is believed to have launched at least 18 missile strikes on militant targets from unmanned drones believed launched from neighboring Afghanistan. The attacks have killed some militants, but many of the dead have been civilians, Pakistani officials say. US military General David Petraeus said last week that the missile strikes had killed three top extremists' leaders.
"We feel that the strikes are an intrusion on our sovereignty which are not appreciated by the people at large, and the first aspect of this war is to win the hearts and mind of the people," Zardari said. Pakistan also faces dire economic problems, from soaring inflation to a falling currency.
The government is talking to the International Monetary Fund about a bailout, a politically unpopular move because it often means cuts in government programs that help the Zardari insisted Monday that there was no economic meltdown looming in Pakistan, but also defended turning to the IMF.
"I think it's a difficult pill, but one has to take medicine to get better," Zardari said.
Imran Khan
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2007
- Messages
- 68,815
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
US urged to stop attacks inside Pakistan
Associated Press of Pakistan
NEW YORK: "No predators please. You are not helping" was the message given to the new US Central Command chief, General David Petraeus, by Pakistani political and military leaders when he visited Pakistan last week, National Security adviser Mahmud Ali Durrani has said.
"I think he (Gen Petraeus) understood the problem and our point of view," he said in an interview published in the latest issue of Newsweek, while calling his visit "very useful."
Durrani said the US attacks inside Pakistani territory in pursuit of suspected militant targets continue to affect relations between the two countries.
"It is very distracting for us. There's collateral damage as well, which upsets the people. So it is not helping our plan. It really throws a spanner in the works," Durrani said, referring to Predator "Drone" attacks.
Durrani said during a recent visit to Washington, he also gave White House National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley the same message of Pakistan's opposition to US attacks inside Pakistani territory.
During the interview Durrani also talked about Pakistan's commitment to battling extremists in its own way, and how the historically testy relations between Pakistan's political leaders and the military are so far proceeding smoothly.
Responding to a question, Durrani said that ultimately President-elect Barack Obama may have to step in to decide whether these "Predator" strikes should continue. Omaba will be sworn in on January 20.
"Of course, this is a decision that has to be taken at the highest political level, not just by CENTCOM or by the local US commander sitting in Afghanistan. Going into someone's sovereign territory has to be cleared at the top level. I have a feeling that Washington is finally getting the message on the land as well as the Predator strikes", he added.
Asked about a strategic disconnect between Pakistan and the United States over the war on armed militancy with the United States hitting areas that you are not targeting, Durrani said, "My assessment is that the disconnect is inside America. It's there, not here. There are some elements in your security system that feel the Predator is not the right way to go. And there are some elements in your security apparatus that think you have to [continue the drone attacks]. So the disconnect is in Washington."
Elaborating on Gen Petraeus' visit, Durrani said, "We appreciate he came here so soon after he took over. It shows his, the military, and the US's commitment to the region. We were very happy.
He said that Pakistan army's successful operation in Bajaur tribal area was being undermined when at the same time Predators are striking to the south in North and South Waziristan.
Associated Press of Pakistan
NEW YORK: "No predators please. You are not helping" was the message given to the new US Central Command chief, General David Petraeus, by Pakistani political and military leaders when he visited Pakistan last week, National Security adviser Mahmud Ali Durrani has said.
"I think he (Gen Petraeus) understood the problem and our point of view," he said in an interview published in the latest issue of Newsweek, while calling his visit "very useful."
Durrani said the US attacks inside Pakistani territory in pursuit of suspected militant targets continue to affect relations between the two countries.
"It is very distracting for us. There's collateral damage as well, which upsets the people. So it is not helping our plan. It really throws a spanner in the works," Durrani said, referring to Predator "Drone" attacks.
Durrani said during a recent visit to Washington, he also gave White House National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley the same message of Pakistan's opposition to US attacks inside Pakistani territory.
During the interview Durrani also talked about Pakistan's commitment to battling extremists in its own way, and how the historically testy relations between Pakistan's political leaders and the military are so far proceeding smoothly.
Responding to a question, Durrani said that ultimately President-elect Barack Obama may have to step in to decide whether these "Predator" strikes should continue. Omaba will be sworn in on January 20.
"Of course, this is a decision that has to be taken at the highest political level, not just by CENTCOM or by the local US commander sitting in Afghanistan. Going into someone's sovereign territory has to be cleared at the top level. I have a feeling that Washington is finally getting the message on the land as well as the Predator strikes", he added.
Asked about a strategic disconnect between Pakistan and the United States over the war on armed militancy with the United States hitting areas that you are not targeting, Durrani said, "My assessment is that the disconnect is inside America. It's there, not here. There are some elements in your security system that feel the Predator is not the right way to go. And there are some elements in your security apparatus that think you have to [continue the drone attacks]. So the disconnect is in Washington."
Elaborating on Gen Petraeus' visit, Durrani said, "We appreciate he came here so soon after he took over. It shows his, the military, and the US's commitment to the region. We were very happy.
He said that Pakistan army's successful operation in Bajaur tribal area was being undermined when at the same time Predators are striking to the south in North and South Waziristan.
Always Neutral
BANNED
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2007
- Messages
- 4,859
- Reaction score
- -20
Dear Imran,
I must say after Neo u are the most tenacious and wisest person here.
Regards
Ps : No offense meant to MuradK, Blain and AM as they are also very wise.
Always Neutral
BANNED
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2007
- Messages
- 4,859
- Reaction score
- -20
No doubt that there are few foriegn qualified members in parliment but majority of our members belong to lords who got land from britishers.
Why blame us ? We gave u a nation and till 1970's u were doing quite well.
REgards
Imran Khan
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2007
- Messages
- 68,815
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
Drone attacks would be discussed with new U.S. govt: Gilani Updated at: 1535 PST, Tuesday, November 11, 2008
ISLAMABAD: Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani on Tuesday said the U.S. government after the election of Barack Obama was in a transition phase and Pakistan would discuss the issue of drone attacks with new government.
Speaking in the National Assembly he said, he has met the US ambassador and their intelligence officials and conveyed to them Pakistan’s concern at these attacks.
He said the whole nation was concerned at the attacks on its western borders by the U.S. and NATO drones and has raised the issue at every forum.
The Prime Minister said that President Asif Ali Zardari would have a chance to take up the issue with U.S. administration where he has proceeded to attend a conference on interfaith harmony.
He stated that Pakistani soil would not be allowed to be used for ground or aerial attacks on any other country and reiterated that Pakistan’s sovereignty and integrity will be safeguarded at all costs.
Referring to the joint closed door session of the parliament, he said it passed a unanimous resolution to ensure Pakistan’s sovereignty, security and integrity.
The Prime Minister informed the house that he also conveyed to the US ambassador the Pakistan’s concern over continuous detention of Dr. Afia Siddiqui in US.
He said he wanted her to send Pakistan immediately on medical grounds.
ISLAMABAD: Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani on Tuesday said the U.S. government after the election of Barack Obama was in a transition phase and Pakistan would discuss the issue of drone attacks with new government.
Speaking in the National Assembly he said, he has met the US ambassador and their intelligence officials and conveyed to them Pakistan’s concern at these attacks.
He said the whole nation was concerned at the attacks on its western borders by the U.S. and NATO drones and has raised the issue at every forum.
The Prime Minister said that President Asif Ali Zardari would have a chance to take up the issue with U.S. administration where he has proceeded to attend a conference on interfaith harmony.
He stated that Pakistani soil would not be allowed to be used for ground or aerial attacks on any other country and reiterated that Pakistan’s sovereignty and integrity will be safeguarded at all costs.
Referring to the joint closed door session of the parliament, he said it passed a unanimous resolution to ensure Pakistan’s sovereignty, security and integrity.
The Prime Minister informed the house that he also conveyed to the US ambassador the Pakistan’s concern over continuous detention of Dr. Afia Siddiqui in US.
He said he wanted her to send Pakistan immediately on medical grounds.
muse
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 13,006
- Reaction score
- 0
And of course, today, a suicide bombing in a packed sports stadium. Still there are those here, who imagine that a leopard can change it's spots. The political and propaganda strategy is to now suggest that Islamists are nationalist Pakistanis, in the Pakistani citizens have accepted and internalized a number of idiot positions they were fed by Islamists, perhaps they will buy this as well.
muse
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 13,006
- Reaction score
- 0
from today's Dailytimes -- Read carefully and enjoy -- or else....
Editorial: FATA and Pakistans sovereignty
Just as President Asif Ali Zardari spoke hopefully about convincing the US President-elect Barack Obama into re-evaluating American military strikes on suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban targets on Pakistans side of the Afghan border, a commander of Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) hijacked 15 trucks in Khyber Agency en route to Afghanistan to deliver goods to US-led coalition forces. It then needed a special military operation by the Pakistan army to get the trucks out of the hands of the Taliban.
The parliament in Islamabad has passed a resolution that is propagated by pro-Taliban media journalists and anchorpersons to favour a withdrawal of the Pakistan army from the Tribal Areas as a prelude to negotiating a political deal with the militants. In actual fact, the resolution says nothing of the sort. It sets explicit constitutional pre-conditions, including the laying down of their arms, for any talks with anti-state elements, let alone any unilateral military withdrawal from FATA. Now a special committee has been formed to ensure that the unanimous resolution is implemented by the government, whatever that means. On one thing, however, there is a consensus in this committee the US must be stopped from attacking Pakistani territory across the Durand Line.
Of course, this is the correct stance to take. No nation-state can allow its territorial sovereignty to be so violated. But one cant also see how the Americans can be persuaded to heed President Zardari, given their knowledge of how Pakistan is unable to control its own territory and prevent the Taliban from attacking Afghanistan. Even the Khyber Agency, proclaimed as the most tamed area after Pakistan carried out an operation there against warlord Mangal Bagh, turns out to be as bad as South Waziristan where the biggest warlord, Baitullah Mehsud, rules unhampered. The trucks in Khyber were paraded by the militants in the shape of a convoy with a banner proclaiming it as Baitullah Caravan, and photographs of this achievement were published in the Pakistani newspapers on Tuesday.
The problem is that no one is convinced of the case made by Pakistan, including Iran which is normally expected to oppose any move by the Americans in the region. The region finds Pakistan inward-looking and isolated and completely disconnected from the information and analyses available about developments in the Tribal Areas at the global level. Significant sections of the Urdu media, which has helped to manufacture this religious-nationalist, honour-bound, angry but irrational consensus, has taken to ignoring a lot of information available abroad in order to secure its emotional case against the contamination of knowledge-based contradiction. The cruel fact is that this media-manufactured consensual stance lacks total credibility at the international level, and it is unlikely that President Obama will call off the US attacks in a hurry.
Under President Obama, Pakistan might have to face up to the regional context proposed to the problem by the ISAF-NATO military commanders. Vaguely, a conference of the regional states is envisaged which will look at the conflict, including the presence of foreign and local militants in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). But most regional states have reservations regarding Pakistans claims about the state of insurgency in the area, and in some cases, have complaints that FATA is training their rebels there. The latest hijack of trucks in Khyber will confirm to them the rumour that Pakistans operation against Mangal Bagh was actually a put up job.
Dr Rasul Baksh Rais, professor of Political Science at the Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS) writes after his return from a seminar on FATA at Wilton Park in the UK: There was a unanimity of views on the fact that restoring normalcy in FATA is a concern for everyone Pakistan, Afghanistan and the international community because it affects everyone and will continue to do so if not settled...While there is broad national consensus on the threat from India, there is no agreement among Pakistanis today on whether or not the Taliban pose a threat to our state and society. This creates a dangerous disconnect between the security forces battling against militants in the Tribal Areas and a section of society that believes the Taliban insurgency to be legitimate and terms the military operations as against the national interest.
In truth, the religious-nationalist medias sensitivity to Pakistans external sovereignty is greatly exaggerated when its internal sovereignty has been so dangerously curtailed in many parts of the country. FATA is only the most visible part of the erosion of the state of Pakistan and is making itself felt more because it endangers other states. This erosion is creeping into the rest of the territory as well. What Pakistan suffers from now is partly the normal third world weakness of state institutions but also the exceptional nature of the presence of armed foreigners and their local foot-soldiers who call themselves Taliban.
Pakistan needs more help, and for that it needs to become a part of the regional and global consensus on what is happening inside its territory. The present government is embarked on the right path of not succumbing to the temptation of isolationism simply to satisfy the media-mujahideen backed consensual emotions of those parliamentarians who love playing to the media galleries. Care has to be taken not to place Pakistan in an either/or situation vis-à-vis the world so that revisions of policy can be made if the internal crises become more untenable.
Editorial: FATA and Pakistans sovereignty
Just as President Asif Ali Zardari spoke hopefully about convincing the US President-elect Barack Obama into re-evaluating American military strikes on suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban targets on Pakistans side of the Afghan border, a commander of Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) hijacked 15 trucks in Khyber Agency en route to Afghanistan to deliver goods to US-led coalition forces. It then needed a special military operation by the Pakistan army to get the trucks out of the hands of the Taliban.
The parliament in Islamabad has passed a resolution that is propagated by pro-Taliban media journalists and anchorpersons to favour a withdrawal of the Pakistan army from the Tribal Areas as a prelude to negotiating a political deal with the militants. In actual fact, the resolution says nothing of the sort. It sets explicit constitutional pre-conditions, including the laying down of their arms, for any talks with anti-state elements, let alone any unilateral military withdrawal from FATA. Now a special committee has been formed to ensure that the unanimous resolution is implemented by the government, whatever that means. On one thing, however, there is a consensus in this committee the US must be stopped from attacking Pakistani territory across the Durand Line.
Of course, this is the correct stance to take. No nation-state can allow its territorial sovereignty to be so violated. But one cant also see how the Americans can be persuaded to heed President Zardari, given their knowledge of how Pakistan is unable to control its own territory and prevent the Taliban from attacking Afghanistan. Even the Khyber Agency, proclaimed as the most tamed area after Pakistan carried out an operation there against warlord Mangal Bagh, turns out to be as bad as South Waziristan where the biggest warlord, Baitullah Mehsud, rules unhampered. The trucks in Khyber were paraded by the militants in the shape of a convoy with a banner proclaiming it as Baitullah Caravan, and photographs of this achievement were published in the Pakistani newspapers on Tuesday.
The problem is that no one is convinced of the case made by Pakistan, including Iran which is normally expected to oppose any move by the Americans in the region. The region finds Pakistan inward-looking and isolated and completely disconnected from the information and analyses available about developments in the Tribal Areas at the global level. Significant sections of the Urdu media, which has helped to manufacture this religious-nationalist, honour-bound, angry but irrational consensus, has taken to ignoring a lot of information available abroad in order to secure its emotional case against the contamination of knowledge-based contradiction. The cruel fact is that this media-manufactured consensual stance lacks total credibility at the international level, and it is unlikely that President Obama will call off the US attacks in a hurry.
Under President Obama, Pakistan might have to face up to the regional context proposed to the problem by the ISAF-NATO military commanders. Vaguely, a conference of the regional states is envisaged which will look at the conflict, including the presence of foreign and local militants in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). But most regional states have reservations regarding Pakistans claims about the state of insurgency in the area, and in some cases, have complaints that FATA is training their rebels there. The latest hijack of trucks in Khyber will confirm to them the rumour that Pakistans operation against Mangal Bagh was actually a put up job.
Dr Rasul Baksh Rais, professor of Political Science at the Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS) writes after his return from a seminar on FATA at Wilton Park in the UK: There was a unanimity of views on the fact that restoring normalcy in FATA is a concern for everyone Pakistan, Afghanistan and the international community because it affects everyone and will continue to do so if not settled...While there is broad national consensus on the threat from India, there is no agreement among Pakistanis today on whether or not the Taliban pose a threat to our state and society. This creates a dangerous disconnect between the security forces battling against militants in the Tribal Areas and a section of society that believes the Taliban insurgency to be legitimate and terms the military operations as against the national interest.
In truth, the religious-nationalist medias sensitivity to Pakistans external sovereignty is greatly exaggerated when its internal sovereignty has been so dangerously curtailed in many parts of the country. FATA is only the most visible part of the erosion of the state of Pakistan and is making itself felt more because it endangers other states. This erosion is creeping into the rest of the territory as well. What Pakistan suffers from now is partly the normal third world weakness of state institutions but also the exceptional nature of the presence of armed foreigners and their local foot-soldiers who call themselves Taliban.
Pakistan needs more help, and for that it needs to become a part of the regional and global consensus on what is happening inside its territory. The present government is embarked on the right path of not succumbing to the temptation of isolationism simply to satisfy the media-mujahideen backed consensual emotions of those parliamentarians who love playing to the media galleries. Care has to be taken not to place Pakistan in an either/or situation vis-à-vis the world so that revisions of policy can be made if the internal crises become more untenable.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/11/us_strikes_inside_pakistan_wil.as
U.S. Strikes Inside Pakistan Will Continue
The U.S. military has struck yet again inside Pakistans lawless tribal areas. U.S. Predators hit an al Qaeda safe house in the Taliban-controlled tribal agency of North Waziristan. Twelve people, including five foreigners were killed in the attack.
The strike occurred just one day after Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari protested the attacks. Its undermining my sovereignty and its not helping win the war on the hearts and minds of people, Zardari said in an interview. On the same day, a spokesman for Pakistans Foreign Ministry described the attacks as a violation of international law.
But the United States is stuck between a rock and a hard place on this issue. On one hand, the attacks risk destabilizing Pakistans government and turn Pakistanis toward the extremists. On the other, U.S. intelligence strongly believes al Qaeda has regrouped in the tribal areas and is actively plotting strikes against the West, using men with Western passports.
The attacks have netted some major al Qaeda leaders this year. Abu Laith al Libi, a senior military commander in Afghanistan, was killed in a strike in North Waziristan in January. Abu Sulayman Jazairi, al Qaedas external operations chief, was killed in a strike in Bajaur in March. Abu Khabab al Masri, al Qaeda's WMD chief, and several senior members of his staff were killed in a strike in South Waziristan in July. Khalid Habib, the leader of al Qaeda's paramilitary forces in the tribal areas, was killed in North Waziristan in October. Abu Jihad al Masri, the leader of the Egyptian Islamic Group and member of al Qaeda's top council, was also killed in North Waziristan this October.
Pakistan is complaining about its sovereignty, but refuses to accept large swaths of its northwestern province are out of its control. Until Pakistan gets a handle on the problem, the United States has no choice but to continue the attacks.
U.S. Strikes Inside Pakistan Will Continue
The U.S. military has struck yet again inside Pakistans lawless tribal areas. U.S. Predators hit an al Qaeda safe house in the Taliban-controlled tribal agency of North Waziristan. Twelve people, including five foreigners were killed in the attack.
The strike occurred just one day after Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari protested the attacks. Its undermining my sovereignty and its not helping win the war on the hearts and minds of people, Zardari said in an interview. On the same day, a spokesman for Pakistans Foreign Ministry described the attacks as a violation of international law.
But the United States is stuck between a rock and a hard place on this issue. On one hand, the attacks risk destabilizing Pakistans government and turn Pakistanis toward the extremists. On the other, U.S. intelligence strongly believes al Qaeda has regrouped in the tribal areas and is actively plotting strikes against the West, using men with Western passports.
The attacks have netted some major al Qaeda leaders this year. Abu Laith al Libi, a senior military commander in Afghanistan, was killed in a strike in North Waziristan in January. Abu Sulayman Jazairi, al Qaedas external operations chief, was killed in a strike in Bajaur in March. Abu Khabab al Masri, al Qaeda's WMD chief, and several senior members of his staff were killed in a strike in South Waziristan in July. Khalid Habib, the leader of al Qaeda's paramilitary forces in the tribal areas, was killed in North Waziristan in October. Abu Jihad al Masri, the leader of the Egyptian Islamic Group and member of al Qaeda's top council, was also killed in North Waziristan this October.
Pakistan is complaining about its sovereignty, but refuses to accept large swaths of its northwestern province are out of its control. Until Pakistan gets a handle on the problem, the United States has no choice but to continue the attacks.
Britan gifted pakistan with excellent infrastructure but it is mistake of our nation to accept these lords as their leaders ,which is the bigest mistake we did.
India eliminate this evil from their society and now you can see the difference.
Thanks
Britan followed Divide and Rule.
If they could have given one pakistan instead of east and west or if they did not allowed the partition itself then three wars and most of the issues right now we are facing wont exists.
India develop/grow more during govt sleeps.
Similar threads
- Article
